一所高中學校轉型之歷程研究：活動理論取徑

Exploring a High School Transformation through the Lens of Activity Theory

10.3966/181665042018091403003

簡菲莉(Feili Chien)；陳佩英(Pei-Ying Chen)

活動理論 ； 展化學習 ； 學校轉型 ； activity theory ； expansive learning ； school transformation

教育研究與發展期刊

14卷3期（2018 / 09 / 30）

65 - 100

繁體中文

本研究旨在深描一所社區高中學校轉型經驗，應用活動理論分析與詮釋組織轉型之歷程。個案學校藉由與大學合作，組成核心小組，運用變革實驗室和活動理論的資料驅動探索模式，回應學校轉型的變革挑戰。研究為期將近兩年，資料蒐集方法包含訪談、參與式觀察和文件分析。研究發現可從個案學校轉型的兩種動力來說明：一為教師社群擴增所激發的組織動能，二是促進學校轉型的展化學習循環；兩種動能機制促發學校系統的持續轉變。個案學校轉型歷程從單點課程的試作，到跨領域課程的設計與創新，再到「一生一課表」的提案，呈顯了組織變革的學習循環，以及「點－線－面」的學校地景變化。在此過程中，教師經由教學研究會和課發會的擴大參與，教師的角色不僅限於課堂內的教學事務，也擴及學校前景發展的探討與擘劃；另一方面，個案學校在現狀與未來之間的拉扯帶出學校變革的衝突與擾動，但也因此引發學校成員的深層對話，展開了水平式的聯繫與學校轉型的探索歷程。學校轉型的進程揭示了集體探究循環和共享決策的學校轉型路徑，經由集體行動所生成的集體智慧，提供了豐富的研究資料，可以捕捉學校系統多年轉型的動態變化，進而分析和梳理變革中的複雜因素之交織和相互影響之路徑。

This study explored in length a high school transformation, using activity theory to analyze and interpret the entire changing process. School improvement takes itself as an ＂object＂ of organizational change. With enactment of organizational capacity and engaging conversation, the school tackles on systemic learning and goes through an organizational change journey. In response to the challenges of educational reform, the high school collaborated with the university to take on the intervention study of activity theory and Change Laboratory. The intervention study lasted for almost two years, using methods including interview, participant observation, and documentary research. Findings of the study can be explained by the dynamic of the school transformation: organizational dynamic inspired by the expansion of teachers' group and the expansive learning cycle. Firstly, this process resulted in the practice of a particular curriculum, then the design and innovation of interdisciplinary curriculum, and finally a proposal of ＂one student, one curriculum timetable＂ for school transformation. The transformation signified the changing school landscape from small parts to the whole school. Through the entire process, most of the school teachers engaged in school future search discussion and planning via instructional study meetings and school-based curriculum committees. Thus, the roles of teachers are not limited to the teaching affairs in the classroom, but the decision making of the school development. Although the teachers had to face with the disturbances derived from the gap between status quo and future vision which aimed for school transformation, the chasm stimulated teachers to open up deep dialogue, lateral conversation and the inquiry regarding school improvement. The cycle of school transformation uncovered the path of collective inquiry cycle and shared decision making. The collective agentic action of school members somewhat displayed the emergent of collective intelligence of the school. The process therefore provided the length and depth of understanding regarding the dynamics and interaction of varied forces within the process of school transformation.

1. 林佩璇、高翠鴻、許燕萍(2016)。差異化教學的矛盾與轉化：活動理論觀。中等教育，67(4)，7-20。
   連結：
2. 陳佩英、曾正宜(2011)。探析專業學習社群的展化學習經驗與課程創新行動：活動理論取徑。教育研究集刊，57(2)，39-84。
   連結：
3. Ball, S.J.(2008).The education debate.Bristol, England:The Policy.
4. Engeström, Y.(1987).Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research.Helsinki, Finland:Orienta-Konsultit.
5. Engeström, Y.(Ed.),Miettinem, R.(Ed.),Punamäki, R.(Ed.)(1999).Perspectives on Activity Theory.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
6. Engeström, Y.,Sannino, A.(2010).Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges.Educational Research Review,5,1-24.
7. Fenwick, T. J.(2004).Learning in portfolio work: Anchored innovation and mobile identity.Studies in Continuing Education,26(2),229-245.
8. FitzSimons, G. E.(2003).Using Engeström's expansive learning framework to analyze a case study in adult mathematics education.Literacy & Numeracy Studies,12(2),47-63.
9. Foot, K.(2001).Cultural-historical activity theory as practical theory: Illuminating the development of a conflict monitoring network.Communication Theory,11(1),56-83.
10. Fullan, M.(2007).The new meaning of educational change.New York, NY:Teachers College Press.
11. Fullan, M.,Quinn, J.,McEachen, J.(2018).Deep learning: Engage the world change the world.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin.
12. Hill, R.,Capper, P.,Wilson, K.,Whatman, R.,Wong, K.(2007).Workplace learning in the New Zealand apple industry network: A new co-design method for government "practice making".Journal of Workplace Learning,19(6),359-376.
13. Hopkins, D.,Ainscow, M.,West, M.(1994).School improvement in an era of change.London, England:Teachers College.
14. Langemeyer, I.(2006).Contradictions in expansive learning: Towards a critical analysis of self-dependent forms of learning in relation to contemporary socio-technological change.Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung,7(1)
15. Leont'ev, A. N.(1978).Activity, consciousness, and personality.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
16. Makino, Y.(2007).The third generation of e-learning: Expansive learning mediated by a weblog.International Journal of Web Based Communities,3(1),16-31.
17. Miettinen, R.(2013).Innovation, Human Capabilities, and Democracy: Towards an Enabling Welfare State.Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.
18. Pan, H. L. W.,Chen, P.(2011).Challenges and research agenda of school leadership in Taiwan.School Leadership and Management,31(4),339-352.
19. Pereira-Querol, M.,Seppanen, L.(2009).Learning as changes in activity systems: The emergence of on-farm biogas production for carbon credits.Outlook on Agriculture,38(2),147-155.
20. Sannino, A.,Daniels, H.,Gutierrez, K. D.(2009).Learning and expanding with activity theory.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
21. Senge. P. M.(1990).The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning Organization.New York, NY:Doubleday.
22. Virkkunen, J.,Ahonen, H.(2004).Transforming learning and knowledge creation on the shop floor.International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management,4(1),57-72.
23. Vygotsky, L. S.(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
24. Yamazumi, K.(Ed.),Engestrom, Y.(Ed.),Daniels, H.(Ed.)(2005).New learning challenges: Going beyond the industrial age system of school and work.Osaka, Japan:Kansai University Press.
25. 羊憶蓉(1994)。教育與國家發展—臺灣經驗。臺北市:桂冠。
26. 洪榮昭、蔡志敏、李岷憲(2011)。科學與科技競賽相關活動之辦理—以活動理論觀點進行分析。教育資料與研究，101，159-192。
27. 廖月娟譯、陳琇玲譯、Senge, P.(2001)。變革之舞：持續「學習型組織」動力的挑戰與策略（上）。臺北市:天下文化。

1. 陳斐卿,張芷瑄(2020)。教師集體課程創新：轉化能動性概念工具的再探究。課程與教學，23(1)，93-116。
2. 陳世良,張家馨(2022)。學校翻轉－願景領導的系統化服務創新模式之個案研究。學校行政，138，29-51。
3. 戰寶華(2023)。支持服務輔導機制促動偏鄉教育變革之歷程探討：以高雄國民教育幼兒班為例。教育科學研究期刊，68(3)，95-139。
4. 掌慶維,陳萩慈,李宏盈(2023)。中學體育教師在素養導向體育課程設計歷程的理解與反思。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，16(3)，27-52。
5. (2019)。臺灣校長領導作為之國際比較：TALIS 2018調查資料之應用。教育研究月刊，308，1-4。
6. (2019)。優質化高中組織動能變化及其影響之縱貫研究。教育學刊，52，77-116。
7. (2020)。學校透過樂齡學習中心實施代間教育之優勢與困境。教育政策論壇，23(4)，99-131。
8. (2021).The Power of Beauty: Developing and Reflecting on a School-Based Curriculum of Cross-Disciplinary Aesthetic Education.國際藝術教育學刊,19(1),165-194.
9. (2021)。美力洋溢—跨領域美感校本課程之發展與省思。國際藝術教育學刊，19(1)，149-164。
10. (2021)。日本の高等教育におけるアクティブラーニングの位置づけ、効果とその可能性。臺灣應用日語研究，28，111-142。
11. (2024)。探究科技領域課程在實踐上的挑戰：文化歷史活動理論視角。數位學習科技期刊，16(1)，31-55。